The
Defendant, Kevin M. Thompson, appeals the trial court's
denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant
to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The Defendant
contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to
serve his sentences concurrently rather than consecutively.
See State v. Kevin Montrell Thompson, No.
E2016-01565-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 262701, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App., at Knoxville, Jan. 20, 2017), no Tenn. R. App. P.
11 application filed. He further contends that his
charge for possession of cocaine should be dismissed because
the term "crack" cocaine is not included in the
relevant statute. He finally asserts that, even if his
sentences have expired, he is entitled to contest his illegal
sentence at any time. After review, we affirm the trial
court's judgment.

Robert
W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall and Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., JJ.,
joined.

OPINION

ROBERT
W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE

I.
Facts

This
case arises from the Defendant's convictions for several
drug offenses. The relevant history of the Defendant's
case was summarized by this court as follows:

In March, 1995, Defendant was indicted by the Hamilton County
Grand Jury in case number 205488 and 205489 for the sale and
delivery of cocaine on December 29, 1994, and in case number
205561 for the sale and delivery of marijuana on December 30,
1994. We note that, for some unknown reason, there are two
cases numbers (205488 and 205489) on a single two-count
indictment. We will refer to the charges in that indictment
as case number 205489, as reflected in the judgment. On
January 17, 1996, Defendant signed a petition to enter guilty
pleas to: selling cocaine in an amount less than 0.5 grams in
case number 205489, in exchange for an agreed upon sentence
of four years to be served consecutive to a prior sentence
(in case number 196078); and selling marijuana in case number
205561, in exchange for an agreed upon sentence of "1
year Range I concurrent." Judgments reflect that
Defendant pleaded guilty: in case number 205489 to the Class
C felony offense of sale of cocaine in an amount less than
0.5 grams and received a sentence of four years to be served
consecutive to a prior sentence (in case number 196078); and
in case number 205561, Defendant pleaded guilty to the Class
E felony offense of selling marijuana and received a sentence
of one year. In case number 205561, the judgment is silent as
to whether Defendant's sentence should run concurrent
with or consecutive to his sentence in case number 205489.
Likewise, the judgment in case number 205489 is silent as to
whether the sentence is to be served consecutive to, or
concurrent with the sentence in case number 205561.

In July, 1998, Defendant was indicted by the Hamilton County
Grand Jury in case number 222104, for possession of marijuana
on March 18, 1998, with intent to sell; in case number
222105, for possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine on
March 18, 1998, with intent to sell; and in case number
222353, for possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine on
January 19, 1998, with intent to sell. In February, 2000,
Defendant was indicted in case number 231805 for possession
of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine on October 26, 1999, with
intent to sell. On June 13, 2000, Defendant signed a petition
to enter guilty pleas to: possession of marijuana with intent
to sell in case number 231805, in exchange for an agreed upon
sentence of two years; possession of cocaine with intent to
sell in case number 222105, in exchange for an agreed upon
sentence of eight years; possession of cocaine with intent to
sell in case number 222353, in exchange for an agreed upon
sentence of eight years; and possession of cocaine with
intent to sell in case number 231805, in exchange of an
agreed upon sentence of eight years. The plea agreement
states that "[a]ll sentences are concurrent" and
were to be served on intensive probation.

Judgments reflect that Defendant pleaded guilty in case
number 222104 to the Class E felony offense of possession of
marijuana with intent to sell, and he received a sentence of
two years to be served on probation; in case number 222105,
Defendant pleaded guilty to the Class B felony offense of
possession of cocaine with intent to sell, and he received a
sentence of eight years to be served on probation; in case
number 222353, Defendant pleaded guilty to the Class B felony
offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, and he
received a sentence of eight years to be served on probation;
and in case number 231805, Defendant pleaded guilty to the
Class B felony offense of possession of cocaine with intent
to sell, and he received a sentence of eight years to be
served on probation. All four judgments are silent as to
whether Defendant's sentences would run concurrent with
or consecutive to each other. An amended judgment was
subsequently entered in case number 222104. The only
difference between the amended judgment and original judgment
that we perceive is that the amended judgment requires
Defendant to submit a DNA sample, and there is a slight
difference in the amount of fines and the dates of
Defendant's pretrial jail credits.

On May 22, 2014, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his
sentences were illegal because the trial court ordered them
to be served concurrently rather than consecutively in direct
contravention of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure
32(c)(3) and Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111(b).
On June 5, 2014, the trial court summarily denied
Defendant's motion because Defendant's
"sentences have expired . . ., even if one or more of
the sentences were illegal under T.C.A. §
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.